CBS’s Attkisson: Obama Admin. Has Stonewalled on Benghazi Since October…Refuses to Answer FOIA Requests

Cover-ups are fine with the liberal media as long as they are committed by like-minded Democrats.

From Newsbusters.org:

On Tuesday, CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson broke on Twitter that the Obama administration “has indicated that it will not be answering Benghazi question we’ve been asking since Oct.” Attkisson, who has provided hard-hitting reporting on the September 11, 2012 Islamist attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, listed many of the questions that the executive branch has yet to answer about the story.

The journalist noted in a later Tweet that “CBS News FOI’d Benghazi info from State Dept, CIA, FBI and Defense Dept. None has been provided.” Attkisson also pointed out a false claim by the administration:

Additionally, CBS News has repeatedly requested the promised surveillance video from Benghazi but it has not been provided. We’ve also asked for any White House photos taken that night, as well as an accounting of Pres. Obama’s decisions and actions. None has been provided….At a press conference 11/14/12, President Obama stated that his Admin. has provided all info regarding ‘what happened in Benghazi.’

Attkisson is one of the only MSM reporters who reported on Fast & Furious. She also so some very great questions that the White House and Hillary won’t answer…

[...]What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death, including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?

Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks?

We understand that convening the CSG a protocol under Presidential directive (“NSPD-46″). Is that true? If not, please explain. [If] so, why was the protocol not followed? Is the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please explain.

Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US personnel in Libya?

Be sure to check  out the 22 questions Attkisson would like answered>>>

Read Full Post »

Not Hillary: 3 Resign After Report Blames State Department for Benghazi Security Lapse

Hillary isn’t stepping down and won’t testify under oath or take responsibility. She’s eyeballing 2016.

From NY Times:

Three State Department officials resigned on Wednesday after an independent panel criticized the “grossly inadequate” security at a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that was attacked on Sept. 11, leading to the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The officials were Eric J. Boswell, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security; Charlene R. Lamb, the deputy assistant secretaryresponsible for embassy security; and Raymond Maxwell, a deputy assistant secretary who had responsibility for North Africa, an administration official said.

The panel’s classified report identified officials in the State Department’s Bureau for Diplomatic Security, whose performance reflected a “lack of proactive leadership,” and complained that the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs had displayed a “lack of ownership of Benghazi’s security issues.”

The report did not criticize any other senior officials, including Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary for management, who has vigorously defended the State Department’s decision-making on Benghazi to Congress, or Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Continue reading.>>

Read Full Post »

State Dept: Hillary May Not Testify on Benghazi

The Obama regime and State Dept. are going to continue covering up the truth for as long as they can.

From Foreign Policy:

The House and Senate foreign relations committees have already announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify on Benghazi next week, but the State Department said today that’s not a done deal.

Moreover, the State Department may not even share the report of its own internal review on Benghazi with Congress, a top State Department official said today.

Congress expects Clinton to testify Dec. 20 about the results of the Accountability Review Board, State’s internal review on the events leading up to and during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevensand three other Americans. But the State Department said today that the work of the ARB, led by Tom Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullen, isn’t complete yet and so the State Department can’t confirm she will testify next week.

“We ask our diplomats and development personnel to operate in some of the most dangerous places on the planet,” Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said in a statement today announcing the hearing.  “We owe it to them, and we owe it to the memory of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his three fellow Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi to get past the politics and focus on the substance of what happened and what it tells us about diplomatic security going forward.”

The House Foreign Affairs Committee has also already announced its Dec. 20 hearing featuring Clinton’s testimony. The title of the HFAC hearing is “Benghazi Attack, Part II: The Report of the Accountability Review Board”

But State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said today that the ARB is not complete, might not be complete by Dec. 20, and Clinton has not agreed to testify on Dec. 20.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Obama’s Potential Secretary of State Claims She Didn’t Mean to Lie to Americans about Benghazi

Pure bullshit. We all know they lied and the emails/cables and pleas for help prove it. The cover-up is political. The terrorist attack that happened in Benghazi went against Obama’s “we have al-Qaeda on its heels..on the run” campaign spin. All Obama talked about leading up to the election was foreign policy because his economic record was abysmal.

Telling the truth goes against this administration’s narrative. We know that the CIA talking points that pointed to al-Qaeda was changed by an Obama political appointee, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. We know that Ambassador Stevens requested and begged for added security. They hid the truth and have been busted time after time.

From Politico:

Under fire from congressional critics, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Ricestressed in a Tuesday statement that she did not intend to mislead the public about the September 11th attacks on the Benghazi consulate.

“Neither I nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the American people at any stage in this process, and the administration updated Congress and the American people as our assessments evolved,” Rice said.

Rice has emerged as a high-profile administration target for congressional critics who claim that the Obama administration tried to cover up a terrorist link to the attacks.

Rice and acting CIA director Michael Morell met Tuesday with Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.),Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) to discuss her public statements in the aftermath of the assault that killed four U.S. State Department personnel in September.

Rice did a round of Sunday shows the weekend after the attack, and claimed that it had been sparked by an anti-Muslim video. The intelligence community later retracted her statements and the talking points she was given.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

Harry Reid Says No to Panel to Investigate Benghazi Cover-up

Figures. Democrats are never interested in exposing Americans to the truth when it involves an Obama scandal.

From Politico:

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid didn’t make it clear enough to Republicans that he opposes a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks, he said it again Friday: No way.

In letters to key Republican senators, Reid put his foot down — again — on the idea of a special panel to dig into the Sept. 11 assault that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three diplomatic aides in Libya. A select committee would need a floor vote to be created, and Reid said he wouldn’t permit it.

“I refuse to allow the Senate to be used as a venue for baseless partisan attacks,” Reid wrote in the three-page letter, released Friday evening.

Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte have led the charge for a special committee in recent days. There also is support for the idea in the House. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) fired off a similar request to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) earlier this week, but Boehner said he didn’t believe a new panel was necessary.

Proponents of the select committee say having one panel to oversee the investigation would streamline the multiple probes currently being conducted by Congress. Committees that deal with intelligence, foreign affairs, homeland security and oversight are all looking into the attacks. Furthermore, the State Department also has established a review board to examine its handling of the Sept. 11 assault.

Continue reading>>>

 

Read Full Post »

Obama Knew Benghazi was a Terrorist Attack…Intentionally Lied to Americans

As I continue to say, Obama is the most well-documented liar in US history.

From WaPo:

In a blockbuster report, John Solomon, the former Associated Press and Post reporter, has ferreted out the president’s daily brief that informed him within 72 hours of the Sept. 11 attack that the Benghazi attack was a jihadist operation.

Citing officials directly familiar with the information, Solomon writes in the Washington Guardian that Obama and other administration officials were told that “that the attack was likely carried out by local militia and other armed extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the region.”

He adds:

The details from the CIA and Pentagon assessments of the killing of Ambassador Chris [Stevens] were far more specific, more detailed and more current than the unclassified talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice and other officials used five days after the attack to suggest to Americans that an unruly mob angry over an anti-Islamic video was to blame, officials said.

Most of the details affirming al-Qaida links were edited or excluded from the unclassified talking points used by Rice in appearances on news programs the weekend after the attack, officials confirmed Friday. Multiple agencies were involved in excising information, doing so because it revealed sources and methods, dealt with classified intercepts or involved information that was not yet fully confirmed, the officials said.Solomon cautions that there were bits of evidence pointing to a spontaneous attack but, as Eli Lake of the Daily Beast and others have reported, he writes: “Among the early evidence cited in the briefings to the president and other senior officials were intercepts showing some of the participants were known members or supporters of Ansar al-Sharia — the al-Qaida-sympathizing militia in Libya — and the AQIM, which is a direct affiliate of al-Qaida in northern Africa, the officials said.”

How could the president and his senior staff then have allowed (or rather, sent) Rice to go out to tell an entirely different tale to the American people on Sept. 16 on five TV shows?

This report indicates that the president certainly knew that Benghazi wasn’t a rogue movie review gone bad. He had information that plainly spelled out what was later confirmed by additional intelligence. If this information was too confidential to share with the public, at the very least the president and others should not have mislead voters.

This is a full-blown scandal, and in light of this information, the press corps’s slothful indifference to uncovering the truth at Wednesday’s news conference with Obama is all the more shocking. It is time for the president to come clean. The scandal has now enveloped the Oval Office and will define his second term, if not resolved satisfactorily.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

State Department Makes Benghazi Documents Available to Senators Only When They are out of Town

It’s almost like they’re trying to cover something up huh?

From ForeignPolicy:

Under pressure from senators, the State Department is allowing some lawmakers to look at cables and other documents related to the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, but only today and tomorrow, when most senators are not in Washington.

Congress is gearing up for a full week of Benghazi-related hearings next week, including a Nov. 13 hearing behind closed doors of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by Chairman John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry has written two letters to the State Department requesting congressional access to information and documents related to the circumstances leading up to and during the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens. Several sensitive documents have already been leaked to congressional offices and the media, so the State Department has decided to let some senators view Benghazi documents but not take them home.

“We are currently in the process of gathering and reviewing record responsive to Congressional requests. Our efforts have already identified a large volume of potentially responsive records that address the security situation leading up to the attack,” State Department Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs David Adams wrote to Kerry on Nov. 2 in a letter obtained by The Cable.

“To facilitate your committee’s work, we want to offer you and other members of the committee the opportunity to review these cables and memoranda. This set of material contains classified and other sensitive information… Mindful of these concerns, the Department is prepared to make copies of these documents available for the committee’s in camera review.”

One senior GOP Senate staffer told The Cable that State is only making the documents available for senators and committee staff to view today and tomorrow, which won’t actually allow the members to prepare for the hearing. Staffers for committee members are also not allowed to see the material.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »

53 House Members Demand of Obama: Were Pre-9/11/12 Benghazi Bombings in Presidential Daily Briefs?

Did Obama have an intelligence briefing and did he attend? As we know, Obama tends to miss most of these briefings and reads them all by himself.

(CNSNews.com) – Fifty-three House members are demanding to know whether the April 6, 2012 and June 6, 2012 bomb-attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya were immediately included in the President’s Daily Brief – those two attacks occurred before the fatal Sept. 11 attack that killed U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans.

“When was President Obama made aware of these two attacks on the Benghazi compound?” the letter asked. “Were these two attacks included in the President’s Daily Brief immediately after the attacks took place?”

The Presidential Daily Brief is a daily national security and intelligence report provided to the president each morning by the director of National Intelligence. It is the foundation of national security briefings.

The letter was sent to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and signed by 53 House members on Nov. 2.

The letter, circulated by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) is in response to ongoing questions surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi compound. That deadly attack came after 230 security incidents in Libya, 48 of which happened in Benghazi from June 2011 to July 2012, the House letter said, citing the U.S. Embassy in Libya’s Regional Security Office.

Continue reading>>>

 

 

Read Full Post »

Vote, Because They Can’t

Read Full Post »

Liberal Media Held Back Details of Benghazi Attack at CIA & Obama Administration’s Request

Most of us have figured out that the CIA was present in Benghazi and there for one thing: to secure the weapons the Obama administration had given to the al-Qaeda -linked Libyan rebels. The 2 ex-Navy SEALs were with the CIA and in Libya looking for MANPADs, shoulder-fired missiles. The truth will finally become clearer after the election on Tuesday.

NEW YORK — U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on a not-for-attribution basis,provided reporters Thursday with the most detailed explanation yet of the CIA’s presence in Benghazi, Libya, and the agency’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, while also identifying the two former Navy SEALs killed that night as being employed by the CIA.

But some news organizations, including the Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post, already knew that the two former SEALs — Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty — were working for the CIA and had agreed not to publish the information at the government’s request.

While AP, the Times and the Post held back this detail following an official request, reporters at other news outlets may also have known or assumed the men were not security contractors given the nature of their work in Libya. ABC News, for example,reported that Doherty had been working to “round up dangerous weapons” in the country. One national security reporter told The Huffington Post that it was an “open secret” in national security circles that the former SEALs were working for the CIA.

However, that detail wasn’t widely reported or, if it was, was quickly pulled back .

On Sept. 21, AP reported that Doherty and Woods “were in Libya on contract with the CIA,” but removed the line in later versions of the story and didn’t describe the men’s status in that way again until after Thursday’s briefing.

“We omitted mention of the two former SEALs’ CIA connection in subsequent versions of the story after CIA officials insisted that other lives would be endangered,” AP spokesman Paul Colford said in a statement to The Huffington Post.

Over the past six weeks, the Benghazi compound has been primarily described as a consulate or diplomatic mission, even though it’s now being reported that just seven of the more than 30 people evacuated from the city were working for the State Department. As The Wall Street Journal wrote Thursday night, “the U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation.”

And now it’s clear the former SEALs killed that night were not part of a security detail for U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who also died in the attack, but were working for the CIA — a fact that, if presented earlier, might have helped reframe the murky narrative from an attack on a diplomatic mission to an attack on a location primarily used for intelligence gathering.

It’s not as if news organizations before Thursday had ignored the CIA’s presence in Benghazi in covering the attack and its aftermath.

Continue reading>>>

Read Full Post »